State closes case

DOCUMENTARY evidence which United States authorities intend to use against Jamaat-al-Muslimeen member Lance Small, facing conspiracy to possess arms and ammunition charges, must be credible enough to support a conviction. If not, Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes told Madame Justice Mira Dean Armorer yesterday, then the country requesting the person (Small) via extradition, would be guilty of judicial fraud. Mendes yesterday closed legal arguments before the judge in the San Fernando High Court, in response to Small’s constitutional motion. Small, aka Olive Enyahoma El, is facing extradition proceedings in the Port-of-Spain Magistrates’ Court. He is wanted in the US to face trial on the charges. The motion, filed by Small’s attorney Pamela Elder SC, challenges the admissibility of the US documentary evidence.

Elder contends a 2004 amendment to the Extradition Act allowing such hearsay evidence violated due process of law and, as a consequence, a right to a fair trial. She is seeking to have the High Court strike out the amendment. In winding up submissions yesterday, however, Mendes, instructed by State attorney Brandon Primus for the US Government and the TT Attorney General, acknowledged that admissibility of the documents as hearsay evidence affected the fairness of the trial. As a general rule, hearsay evidence was not admitted in court proceedings. Hearsay by way of documentary evidence is, however, permissible pursuant to the 2004 amendment to the Extradition Act in all extradition proceedings. Mendes told the judge the 2004 amendment provided an exception because it was almost impossible to have foreign witnesses available at the local extradition hearing to certify and tender respective documents. Mendes requested Armorer to view the extradition proceedings as a committee. Hearing will continue on July 30 for Elder to respond to Mendes’ submission.